Identification/Development of Reference Materials

47 views
Skip to first unread message

Morgan Bruns

unread,
Apr 28, 2021, 9:36:11 AM4/28/21
to MaCFP Discussions

During and after the workshop, there was a significant amount of interest in identifying or developing a standard reference material to serve as a consistent benchmark for fire experiments. I wanted to start a separate thread here to help us get started.

Several examples of similar ideas were mentioned:

(1)   Arnaud and Thomas mentioned an effort in France to develop a standard reference material. Unfortunately, it sounds like the effort was never completed. To echo Guillermo, does anyone know if there is more information on this project?

(2)   NIST has years of experience developing standard reference materials (SRMs). The most successful SRMs relevant to fire are the standard reference cigarettes. I’ll reach out to Dick Gann to hear his thoughts.

(3)   Alex Brown mentioned standard reference biomass and coal samples. Here’s a link from NIST discussing some biomass reference materials of specified composition:  https://www.nist.gov/publications/compositional-analysis-biomass-reference-materials-results-interlaboratory-study. Is anyone aware of more literature on coal or biomass materials? Would a coal or biomass material work well for our purposes?

(4)   Mark Dietenberger suggested Rexolite Polystyrene which is used in microwaves. His group has found that this material is a low cost reliable standard.

Are there other examples of fire reference materials that anyone is aware of? If so, it would be great if you could share some of the literature here. We should start a running list of candidate materials. So far, it looks like we might consider:

1)     the MaCFP black PMMA

2)     coal or biomass reference materials

3)     Rexolite polystyrene

Please make suggestions of other candidate materials as they come to mind.

Another issue that we should be clear on is the purpose of this proposed reference material (RM). From the discussion, it seems that the main purpose of the RM is that it will provide a benchmark to allow experimentalists verify that they are running their tests consistently over time. This means that the RM must have good repeatability and reproducibility for the target experiments. So we will need to have some set of target experiments in mind (e.g., TGA, DSC, MCC, CAPA, FPA, and cone). Hopefully, if a material works well in TGA it will also work well in other experiments as well. Are there other purposes for this proposed RM that we need to consider?

Probably the biggest challenge in identifying a RM is availability and consistency over time. As was mentioned at the workshop, there have been issues in obtaining more of the black PMMA that we are working with. Is anyone aware of synthetic materials that are widely used and not subject to many formulation or processing variations? Natural fuels such as wood or cotton might also be possible, but there is likely to be substantial variability due to differing environmental conditions (e.g., soil, season, rainfall, etc.). I don’t think that variability is necessarily a deal breaker as long as the variability is well characterized.

Some other questions:

·       Should we seek to identify several RMs having varying degrees of complexity?

·       Should we push to have this be a topic at a MaCFP virtual meeting in 6 months or so (October or November 2021)?

·       Should we try to work with an institution like NIST to organize the development of this proposed RM?

·       If we are going to make this happen, we will need to organize some type of round robin interlaboratory study. What target experiments and materials should we consider for this study? Who is willing to participate in such a study?

All of the above is just my attempt to summarize what has been said so far in hopes that it will help keep the momentum going. Please correct or add to what I’ve written as necessary.

Morgan

Morgan Bruns

unread,
Apr 28, 2021, 9:46:04 AM4/28/21
to MaCFP Discussions
Simo mentioned the following in another thread:

" Regarding the benchmark material: I wonder if it could be something that can be manufactured in laboratories. Relying on industrial supplier(s) is a challenge for continuity. I have seen different devices in polymer and composite labs, being used to make samples from simple base ingredients (usually some basic polymer, though) but don’t understand them well enough to know if collaborating with such labs would help here."

Does anyone know if this is possible? Of course not all labs have this type of polymer processing equipment, but if we have enough interested labs that could contribute to the production of such a material this might be a viable solution.

Message has been deleted

Yuji NAKAMURA

unread,
Apr 28, 2021, 10:24:50 AM4/28/21
to Morgan Bruns, MaCFP Discussions

Quite previously, NIST polymer division manufactured the designed polymer specimen and they were used for fire researches. Probably there were collaboration project across divisions. Now division name was changed to "material science and engineering division" and polymer group becomes one of them. 

Isaac, any idea?

Yuji

2021年4月28日(水) 22:46 Morgan Bruns <morgan.ch...@gmail.com>:
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MaCFP Discussions" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to macfp-discussi...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/macfp-discussions/687b0745-d139-430b-8197-b2b688e9f51en%40googlegroups.com.


--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yuji NAKAMURA, Dr. Eng.
Toyohashi University of Technology
1-1 Hibarigaoka, Tempaku, Toyohashi 441-8580, JAPAN
Tel.&Fax.: +81-532-44-6647  //  E-mail: yu...@me.tut.ac.jp

isaac.l...@gmail.com

unread,
Apr 28, 2021, 10:58:12 AM4/28/21
to MaCFP Discussions
Hi Yuji,

I am not quite sure what you're asking regarding name changes of specific groups or divisions. I work in the Fire Research Division, which is part of the Engineering Laboratory. The materials science and engineering division is part of the Materials and Measurement Laboratory. Many of our labs in the same building ('Polymers'). I am not sure if specific names or designations are critical here though - collaboration across groups, labs, and or divisions is encouraged when a common goal or need is met. I am certain that we can reach out to other groups here, as needed, when we have defined the exact scope and needs of our problem.

I think what's important now, for us as a community, is to first identify:
1. If there is a need for a specific calibration material (and for what type of apparatus)?
  Is any currently available material suitable for our purposes or do we need to develop a new one? Do we simply need an appropriately organized round robin with an existing material to assess repeatability & reproducibility?
  As Morgan pointed out, would we want a single material, or multiple; could they all be applied equally to each apparatus of interest?
  As Simo noted, who (industry or a specific institution) has the capability to make this material (and to do so continuously for future not just for a single round robin or one round of MaCFP)?

2.What would be our calibration targets (e.g., a specific response,  curve, and/or (series of) tabulated value(s) that could demonstrate that 'apparatus X' is properly calibrated and correctly used when testing this reference material)
   Importantly, we need to define a suitable accuracy to these measurands, and this should be selected not only on the basis of experimental capability, but on simulation needs (i.e., given model prediction sensitivity to a given parameter, it is critical that we enable sufficient accuracy when determining that parameter; our reference material needs to provide this).

With an idea of these needs and the resources required to address these, then we can hopefully start to organize/make commitments for who/what organization can lead this effort (e.g., organize a round robin to study xyz material or calibration technique).

Morgan Bruns

unread,
Apr 28, 2021, 11:44:10 AM4/28/21
to MaCFP Discussions
Relevant to Yuji's comments. I just received the following from Matt Bundy at NIST:

Hi Morgan,

I have not been following this discussion closely, but I thought I would let you know there have been other attempts at ASTM to develop reference materials for fire tests.   SRM is a trademark of NIST, so generically it would be Certified RM (CRM) or RM.  The attached documents may be of interest.  The oxygen bomb calorimeter uses benzoic acid tablets C6H5CO2H as a reference material.  Feel free to share with the larger group if you find this valuable.  

Matt

Link to ASTM paper:  https://www.astm.org/DIGITAL_LIBRARY/STP/PAGES/STP154120120008.htm


On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:24:50 AM UTC-4 yu...@me.tut.ac.jp wrote:

Bjarne Paulsen Husted

unread,
Apr 29, 2021, 3:00:56 AM4/29/21
to Morgan Bruns, MaCFP Discussions

Hi Everyone,

In relation to the ASTM standard and the need for a good reference material.

 

We noticed that the pmma used had a relative big variation in thickness, varying from 5.8 to 6.2 mm between samples.

Even individual samples could have a variation in thickness up to 0.1 mm across a distance of 10 cm. (from corner to corner).

 

So we very much support that we find/ or manufacture a material with smaller tolerances, both in physical dimension and in physical properties.

 

Best regards

Bjarne Husted

DBI/Lund University

 

 

Fra: macfp-di...@googlegroups.com <macfp-di...@googlegroups.com> På vegne af Morgan Bruns
Sendt: 28 April 2021 17:44
Til: MaCFP Discussions <macfp-di...@googlegroups.com>
Emne: Re: Identification/Development of Reference Materials

 

Relevant to Yuji's comments. I just received the following from Matt Bundy at NIST:

 

Hi Morgan,

I have not been following this discussion closely, but I thought I would let you know there have been other attempts at ASTM to develop reference materials for fire tests.   SRM is a trademark of NIST, so generically it would be Certified RM (CRM) or RM.  The attached documents may be of interest.  The oxygen bomb calorimeter uses benzoic acid tablets C6H5CO2H as a reference material.  Feel free to share with the larger group if you find this valuable.  

Matt

On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 10:24:50 AM UTC-4 yu...@me.tut.ac.jp wrote:

 

Quite previously, NIST polymer division manufactured the designed polymer specimen and they were used for fire researches. Probably there were collaboration project across divisions. Now division name was changed to "material science and engineering division" and polymer group becomes one of them. 

 

Isaac, any idea?

 

Yuji

 

2021年4月28日(水) 22:46 Morgan Bruns <morgan.ch...@gmail.com>:

Simo mentioned the following in another thread:

 

" Regarding the benchmark material: I wonder if it could be something that can be manufactured in laboratories. Relying on industrial supplier(s) is a challenge for continuity. I have seen different devices in polymer and composite labs, being used to make samples from simple base ingredients (usually some basic polymer, though) but don’t understand them well enough to know if collaborating with such labs would help here."

 

Does anyone know if this is possible? Of course not all labs have this type of polymer processing equipment, but if we have enough interested labs that could contribute to the production of such a material this might be a viable solution.

On Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 9:36:11 AM UTC-4 Morgan Bruns wrote:

During and after the workshop, there was a significant amount of interest in identifying or developing a standard reference material to serve as a consistent benchmark for fire experiments. I wanted to start a separate thread here to help us get started.

Several examples of similar ideas were mentioned:

(1)   Arnaud and Thomas mentioned an effort in France to develop a standard reference material. Unfortunately, it sounds like the effort was never completed. To echo Guillermo, does anyone know if there is more information on this project?

(2)   NIST has years of experience developing standard reference materials (SRMs). The most successful SRMs relevant to fire are the standard reference cigarettes. I’ll reach out to Dick Gann to hear his thoughts.

(3)   Alex Brown mentioned standard reference biomass and coal samples. Here’s a link from NIST discussing some biomass reference materials of specified composition:  https://www.nist.gov/publications/compositional-analysis-biomass-reference-materials-results-interlaboratory-study.. Is anyone aware of more literature on coal or biomass materials? Would a coal or biomass material work well for our purposes?

(4)   Mark Dietenberger suggested Rexolite Polystyrene which is used in microwaves. His group has found that this material is a low cost reliable standard.

Are there other examples of fire reference materials that anyone is aware of? If so, it would be great if you could share some of the literature here. We should start a running list of candidate materials. So far, it looks like we might consider:

1)     the MaCFP black PMMA

2)     coal or biomass reference materials

3)     Rexolite polystyrene

Please make suggestions of other candidate materials as they come to mind.

Another issue that we should be clear on is the purpose of this proposed reference material (RM). From the discussion, it seems that the main purpose of the RM is that it will provide a benchmark to allow experimentalists verify that they are running their tests consistently over time. This means that the RM must have good repeatability and reproducibility for the target experiments. So we will need to have some set of target experiments in mind (e.g., TGA, DSC, MCC, CAPA, FPA, and cone). Hopefully, if a material works well in TGA it will also work well in other experiments as well. Are there other purposes for this proposed RM that we need to consider?

Probably the biggest challenge in identifying a RM is availability and consistency over time. As was mentioned at the workshop, there have been issues in obtaining more of the black PMMA that we are working with. Is anyone aware of synthetic materials that are widely used and not subject to many formulation or processing variations? Natural fuels such as wood or cotton might also be possible, but there is likely to be substantial variability due to differing environmental conditions (e.g., soil, season, rainfall, etc.). I don’t think that variability is necessarily a deal breaker as long as the variability is well characterized.

Some other questions:

·       Should we seek to identify several RMs having varying degrees of complexity?

·       Should we push to have this be a topic at a MaCFP virtual meeting in 6 months or so (October or November 2021)?

·       Should we try to work with an institution like NIST to organize the development of this proposed RM?

·       If we are going to make this happen, we will need to organize some type of round robin interlaboratory study. What target experiments and materials should we consider for this study? Who is willing to participate in such a study?

All of the above is just my attempt to summarize what has been said so far in hopes that it will help keep the momentum going. Please correct or add to what I’ve written as necessary.

Morgan

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MaCFP Discussions" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to macfp-discussi...@googlegroups.com.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yuji NAKAMURA, Dr. Eng.

Toyohashi University of Technology

1-1 Hibarigaoka, Tempaku, Toyohashi 441-8580, JAPAN

Tel.&Fax.: +81-532-44-6647  //  E-mail: yu...@me.tut.ac.jp

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MaCFP Discussions" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to macfp-discussi...@googlegroups.com.

rogaume

unread,
Apr 29, 2021, 3:50:06 AM4/29/21
to Morgan Bruns, MaCFP Discussions, Laurent Ferry

Dear all

Thank you very much Morgan for this synthesis concerning the important challenge of the identification-determination-development of a reference material.

As I participate to the French discussions about this challenge, I will try to explain-traduce you our difficulties discussed into the French Group of Fire Safety Research and the one of Material. The discussions we had concerned:

-          The choice of a commercial reference material: one of the main problem is that we do not really know the composition and the properties. Unknown additive can also be added. Those ones can also evaluate as a function of time, with evolution of the materials/process used for their fabrication, same with a same Firm.

-          Many materials, natural ones, have variable properties as a function of the sample… It is the case for wood for example.

-          In order to avoid the complexity of the thermal decomposition, the objective was to use a non charring, non bubbling, etc. as well as composites and other “complex” materials

-          Discussions concerned the use of PMMA. Problems was the ones pointed in my first point but also its spectral and radiative properties. This was also a problem for other synthetic polymers discussed.

-          Etc.

Then, it was discussed with people coming from the science of the material to develop our own material in order to be sure of its composition, properties, etc. The people concerned was those of the “Ecole des Mines d’Ales”, Prof. Laurent Ferry, lauren...@mines-ales.fr

But finally this did not lead

 

Best regards

Thomas

 

 

-           

 

De : macfp-di...@googlegroups.com [mailto:macfp-di...@googlegroups.com] De la part de Morgan Bruns
Envoyé : mercredi 28 avril 2021 15:46
À : MaCFP Discussions <macfp-di...@googlegroups.com>
Objet : Re: Identification/Development of Reference Materials

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "MaCFP Discussions" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to


To view this discussion on the web visit

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages